Chris Mooney interviews Michael Mann on “climategate”

This is an interesting interview (download MP3). Michael Mann has been vilified by climate change deniers. His work on the so-called “hockey stick” graph is still being misrepresented despite being validated by the US National research council and other researchers.

“In response to growing public skepticism—and a wave of dramatic attacks on individual researchers—the scientific community is now bucking up to more strongly defend its knowledge. Leading the charge is one of the most frequently attacked researchers of them all—Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann.

In this interview with host Chris Mooney, Mann pulls no punches. He defends the fundamental scientific consensus on climate change, and explains why those who attack it consistently miss the target. He also answers critics of his “hockey stick” study, and explains why the charges that have arisen in “ClimateGate” seem much more smoke than fire.

Dr. Michael E. Mann is a member of the Pennsylvania State University faculty, and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center. His research focuses on the application of statistical techniques to understanding climate variability and change, and he was a Lead Author on the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report. Among many other distinguished scientific activities, editorships, and awards, Mann is author of more than 120 peer-reviewed and edited publications. That includes, most famously, the 1998 study that introduced the so called “hockey stick,” a graph showing that modern temperatures appear to be much higher than anything seen in at least the last thousand years. With his colleague Lee Kump, Mann also recently authored the book Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming. Finally, he is one of the founders and contributors to the prominent global warming blog, RealClimate.org.”

Mooney’s biggest problem is the giant pre-industrial warming period. If you do as he does, and ignore this period, it looks almost like we are in an upward spiralling period of warmth. But if you are an ethical scientist, you have to include earlier warming periods. And why wouldn’t you? Would you ignore half a bell curve? Why was there a greater period of warming before the Industrial age? Why has there been no global warming in the past 15 years?

The very fact these people hide their data and shout down scientists who disagree is all I need to know. It is about the politics of money.

You asked where the c**p is coming from so here is one of the best sources:
Kevin Trenberth (UCAR), October 12, 2009:
“We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

At the risk of wading into a “denier/believer brawl,” there’s some hot new actual SCIENCE that turns out to be directly relevant to Mann’s central thesis. This new research doesn’t tell us anything about Mann’s personal life, truthfulness, body odor, or anything “juicy,” but it does provide an independent window on the “hockey stick” view of the temperature records over the last millenium.

I’m talking about “paleoCLAMatology” (joke!), a lovely new method of detecting not just the climate, but the WEATHER over the last two thousand years. Clams live shallow water and build their shells using the minerals and other elements that are in the water. One of the elements that goes into a clamshell is oxygen, and the ratio of oxygen isotopes dissolved in water varies linearly with the temperature of the water. Heavy oxygen (O-18) is more prevalent in colder water.

By slicing ancient clamshells with a microtome and sending those slices through a mass spectrometer, scientists can read the O-18 concentrations down to week-by-week precision. Preliminary results using clams from a bay in Iceland show clear evidence of both the “Medieval Warming Period” (MWP) and a “Roman Warm Period” (RWP).

To give Mann his due, he never said there wasn’t a MWP. He just argues that it was a localized phenomenon that affected northern Europe but not the planet as a whole. Clams from Iceland can’t rebut that argument–but “clamatology” can be used on shells from anywhere. We finally have a methodology that gives us fine-grained information about the temperature of shallow waters anywhere we’d like to look–there are LOTS of clams out there!

Note: shallow-water temperature measurements are NOT the same as surface temperature measurements, so we’ll have to do some new modeling to see how air temperature relates to shallow seas. I think it’s promising work in its own right–a huge amount of heat is stored in the top layer of the ocean, and it’s hard to model planetary climate just by looking at proxies of inland air temperature.

So–is there ANYBODY here who isn’t happy to get a new scientific tool that gives us more information about reality? If so, speak out–I’d like to know who can be unhappy about ancient clamshells!

Ken, I’m now confused about the “hockey stick.” You say it has been “vindicated.” I’ve seen a LOT of graphs that show a very different story, and I’ve read a LOT of posts that talk about this or that feature of the “hockey stick” being disproved.

I’m not trying to pick a fight with anyone, but I would like to get the basics of recent history straight. I know the original hockey stick graph featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC report. The Wikipedia write-up on this issue says, “More than twelve subsequent scientific papers using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs, with variations in the extent to which the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent “little ice age” were significant, but almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 2Oth century.”

I’ve looked at a lot of the graphs that support or challenge Mann’s “hockey stick.” The big difference between them all is the flatness of the “stick” part of the graph. All the graphs show a rapid rise in the last few decades, but some graphs show a general zig-zag pattern, in which such a rise is not at all concerning, while others show a thousand year flat graph followed by an unprecedented spike.

If Mann has been “vindicated” by follow-up research that says the 20th century is the warmest in a thousand years, then I don’t have any argument. We don’t have very accurate measurements of temperatures a thousand years ago, and I don’t dispute that our surface temperature measurements are now higher than anything else I know about.

But there’s a big difference between saying that Mann has been vindicated by other research that says the 20th century is the warmest yet and the suggestion that the “hockey stick” itself has been vindicated.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. The “hockey stick” graphic makes a powerful claim about reality. If that claim is not well supported by the body of available evidence, we need to throw out the hockey stick and start over.

Ken–is it your position that Mann’s original “hockey stick” graph accurately represents the best evidence we have at present?

To answer Cedric’s question on the Phil Jones quote, the exact quote is here

B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Jones didn’t “admit” that at all. All the same, it’s a pity he didn’t supply in the interview the confidence level the trend is in fact significant to.

These one-line-crocks get tiresome and obviously operate on the hope that if you repeat a lie often enough then some people will believe it.

In similar vein, “Galloping camel” ought to specify and provide context of what “lack of warming” Trenberth was referring to in the cherry-picked paraphrase he supplied earlier. From what I’ve read Trenberth wasn’t referring to the recent global climatic temperature trend. But those who supply the quote are usually loath to look too closely at the source of their sound bite.

Scott, – I’m not speaking for Ken but it would be foolish to say “that Mann’s original “hockey stick” graph accurately represents the best evidence we have at present”. Mann’s graph was one of the first of its kind. It is only to be expected that subsequent research will modify and improve upon its accuracy.

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.”

Dear Richard,
Yes I am confused, because as you know, I am a worthless troll, and it is so difficult for us flat-eathers to understand these difficult words.
I thank you for your patience, however.

Now, I was merely supplying the requested information. Cedric asked for the exact quote from Phil Jones, which I supplied, and you, I believe, asked for the quote from Trenbreth “quote” (sorry, email) was also provided.

I am sorry if that wasn’t what was requested. Silly me, what a dither these trolls get into..

The stupid thing about it is that DreadPirateRobert didn’t do any fact-checking of his own.
He most likely got his science pre-digested for him via a denier site somwhere.
(Unless he comes back, we’ll never know for sure but it’s a safe bet.)

If you really believe that Dr Phil Jones said something electrifying then…do some fact-checking BEFORE you make yourself look like a dill on the interent.
All it really takes is a google search and a hunt for primary sources.
A little bloody research.
It ain’t that hard folks!

The denialosphere just doesn’t get this “statistical significance” thing.
They really don’t get it.Link

For those of you who don’t like statistics yet are curious about what that phrase mean, there’s a really, REALLY simple video to help you all out.Link.

(It won’t do much good though, the “no global warming for 15 years” will become yet another zombie PRATT that will live forever in the Intertoobs. Endlessly coming back to life again…and again…and again…and again…and again…)

No I can’t explain what Trenberth’s perceived travesty was actually over.

Neither can gallopingcamel.
gallopingcamel is…special.

However, Andy, you did not bring up the topic so…you’re not in the hot seat. You get to walk away unscathed from the coming trainwreck.

…Calling gallopingcamel, calling galloping camel……

Delve into the email.
Explain it to us and provide your sources.
You know you want to.

P.S.
Take your meds first! I don’t think we need a repeat of your previous behaviour around here and elsewhere…Play nice.

116
gallopingcamel – if that was your best way to get our attention, you just made yourself look like a moron. Do some research before you open your big mouth next time. You could have started talking about good way’s of stopping CO2 emissions right from the start without making idiotic comments to wind us up. Now we’ll just leave jakerman to talk to you because in terms of communication, you suck.
Posted by: guthrie | January 23, 2010 7:07 AMFrom the Scienceblog “Deltoid” by Tim Lambert

Yeah, there’s a novel idea.
Instead of quote-mining sombody and repeating a denialist PRATT, why not actually go to primary sources?
It’s really not that hard.
Google is a beautiful thing.

Stop being a tool.

Let’s hear what Trenberth has to say in plain English…

It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.

This paper tracks the effects of the changing Sun, how much heat went into the land, ocean, melting Arctic sea ice, melting Greenland and Antarctica, and changes in clouds, along with changes in greenhouse gases. We can track this well for 1993 to 2003, but not for 2004 to 2008. It does NOT mean that global warming is not happening, on the contrary, it suggests that we simply can’t fully explain why 2008 was as cool as it was, but with an implication that warming will come back, as it has.

Galloping camel, before I (or anyone else who has read this thread) take anything further you contribute to the debate seriously you have a lot of work to do to convince that you argue in good faith. Your first post in this thread has all the hallmarks of being disingenuous.

Scott – re the hockey Stick issue – read my post on that (search for Hockey Stick and tawdriness – sorry I am in an airport and can’t provide the link).

Re the O isotope ratios in CaCO3 as a proxy T measure. That’s not new. I remebber in my PhD years a colleague of mine working on this. That was the 1960s. This sort of data will have been included in the proxy measures used in the Hockey stick and similar work.

You perpetuated a falsehood.
The reason why you don’t accept the science of global warming is because you don’t do any fact checking.

Fact checking is an alien concept to you.

You read something on the Internet, misunderstand it, misrepresent it somewhere else and ended up looking like a rather typical example of how science deniers “think”.
Bravo, you dill.
Here’s how educated people do their fact checking.
Learn.

DreadPirateRoberts. I guess you don’t understand the meaning of statistical significance. Your should really look into this properly. I wrote on it in Deniers distort Phil Jones and there is a simple video there explaining how Jones’ comment has been distorted and misrepresented.

It is really a classic example of how deniers are lying, distorting and misrepresenting the evidence on climate change.

Richard Christie,
I never thought of you as impolite so apology unnecessary. Thanks for the explanation of the long words. Actually these are my sincerely held views; no teasing! Here is a short version:

Has the climate warmed since 1850?….YES
Has the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere risen since 1850?……YES
Did humans contribute to this rise in CO2…..YES
Does rising CO2 concentration cause warming or cooling?……WARMING
How much of the warming was caused by CO2 of human origin?……..I DON’T KNOW
Are the MBH98&99 papers good science?….NO

BTW, don’t get the idea that AGW sceptics want to rape the environment. I worked to clean up the lower reaches of the Thames river. From zero vertebrate species in 1960 to 115 in 2000 is a notable achievement showing that appalling levels of pollution can be reversed. I raised rainbow trout in commercial quantities in Greenwich using Thames water from 1978-1981. Today the salmon are back! Oh, Frabjous Day!

So Galloping – You don’t know about question 5? Have you had a gander at what the IPCC report says about the relative contributions of the different factors? Obviously there are uncertainties in all of them but you can get a rough quantitative idea of each input.

Galloping camel, the Trenberth quote is inflammatory because it is often deliberately delivered out of context and left to create the impression that a scientist is surreptitiously admitting that global warming isn’t happening.

I suspect that you knew this.

Why did you throw the quote, completely out of the context Trenberth was writing about, into the discussion on Mann’s temperature record, if not to create mischief?

Ken,
You and I have both made a living as scientists so we should be able to admit how little we know with anything even close to certainty.

On the other hand I do know what bad science looks like. Even if MBH98&99 did not deny history it should be discarded because the data analysis is beyond sloppy. McIntyre & McKittrick have created a cottage industry out of Mann’s incompetence.

The AGW ship is sinking mainly as a result of the blindness of its supporters who still cling to the bad science published by Gore, Pachauri and Mann.

As long as you folks continue to defend the indefensible, your cause is lost.

Ken, there have been some interesting developments in the “skeptic” world lately that merit some discussion. Dr. Roy Spencer has been doing matched-pairs analysis of neighboring surface temperature measurement stations, looking for statistical relationships between population density and temperature differences. He’s come up with some fascinating findings which have made a major impact on my own thinking about climatology.

Would you be willing to take a look at what he’s found? I’d appreciate a post that would allow people to critique Dr. Spencer’s analysis.

“The AGW ship is sinking mainly as a result of the blindness of its supporters who still cling to the bad science…”

Creationist minds think alike. Even the rhetoric is the same.

The theory has so many holes that they must blindly gaze at the figurehead in order to deny that the ship of Darwinism is sinking.

Any bets on which ship will sink first?
🙂

In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years. This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making. The claim is that evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 162 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn’t stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order:

1825 [cont.]……

Speaking of creationism, did somebody mention the name of Dr Roy Spencer?
Oh Goody.

Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design, and rejects evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species.
(..)
He publicly promotes his ideas on intelligent design and the weather, including four appearances on Coast to Coast AM.
(..)
On the subject of Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005, “Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as ‘fact,’ I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.” He further states “I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world… Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.”Link

When asked the question, “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”, he replies “Yes, but only just.” He goes on to say that it is a positive trend but does not rise to the level of significance. Exactly HOW was that misquoted or out of context?

Scott – why keep jumping from one thing to another. If you are interested in Spencer’s work, look up the journal paper, consider other papers discussing similar areas, etc., etc. This blog doesn’t exist to answer questions like that.

If Spencer has not published in a reputable journal – that tells you something. Any scientist worth her salt would rush to publish significant findings – not post them on a deneir blog.

Ken,
The NAS/NRC and Wegman reports (2006) have little comfort for Michael Mann. If you think otherwise, my guess is that you are relying on Wikipedia where the relevant sections have been edited by William Connolly.

The Wegman report is quite clear in its rejection of Mann’s analysis and its support for M&M (McIntyre & McKittrick) 2003, 2005a&b.

Just one example; M&M have Mann’s data and they show that when it is properly processed, the Medieval Warm Period is clearly seen with temperatures significantly higher than today.

“Statistically-significant” actually means something very important.
It really not the same as saying “no significant” or “not significant”.
Try and pull a switcheroo like that in statistics class and your professor will EAT YOU ALIVE.

I’d really like to see you try publishing something claiming it is “significant” without providing the statistics to back it up. In biological field that will get tossed immediately. Saying it is significant implies that it has been assessed by some statistical method and meets the parameters for significance in the test.

At best you can say there is a trend – which is in FACT what he says. But without it being statistically significant, it’s meaningless. He makes the same point on the very next question regarding whether there has been cooling over the last several years.

You’re the ones in denial here, plain and simple.

For the record, I’m a scientist. I believe in evolution. I believe most science, including climate science, is good science. But you also can’t convince me that you can predict how things will be 100 years from now based on weather/climate patterns of today. Several years ago, at the height of the mad cow epidemic, it was predicted that England would have by now over half a million cases of human new variant CJD based on the number of cases that had popped up in just a few years. That prediction was just a *wee* bit off.

Crazy Okie,
The bar for statistical significance is necessarily higher when the time period is only 15 years.. Phil Jones was responding with typical caution to the climate data being bandied about.. for identify a trend with such a short time period requires at least a 95% confidence interval.

There is a trend if you look at the last 100 years or so of human industry

Here’s another nice little illustration of the statistical aspects of this distortion of Jones’s comment:

From a blog posting:

Growthgate -http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/growthgate/

“Suppose you have a child, a son — he’s 10. You want to know whether or not he’s growing normally, so every day you measure his height with a tape measure. You’ve done so since he was 5. You even plot the data on a graph, and notice two things about it. First: the measurements show a fair amount of jitter, sometimes they’re a wee bit higher, sometimes a wee bit lower, there’s noise in the data. Second: there’s also a trend. Your kid is a lot taller at 10 than he was at 5, in fact the trend over the observed time span is upward and reasonably steady. You even do a statistical analysis, estimate the growth rate, and determine that it’s definitely statistically significant — so it’s not a false trend due to noise in the data, it’s real. Your son is growing normally.

Then you’re interviewed by a reporter from the Daily Mail. He asks, “Can you prove — with statistical significance — that your child has been growing since last Tuesday?”

You reply that no, even though the trend over that time span is upward, it’s not statistically significant.

The next day you read the article in the Daily Mail which is titled, “Growthgate U-turn as parent admits: There has been no growth since last Tuesday.”

You protest. “I never said my child wasn’t growing! I just said that the data over such a short time span didn’t show it with statistical significance! That’s only because on such a short time scale, the noise obscures the trend.”

Alas, it’s too late, the damage is done, because 3500 blogs have repeated the article from the Daily Mail and child protective services has been asked to investigate your fitness as a parent.

Sorry, that fails to convince me. Nice try, but not convincing.
Scientists use statistics for a reason.
If everything that was a trend turned out to be true, we wouldn’t need statistics. Not all trends turn out to be true!

I have no objections to Phil Jones saying that there is a trend and stating that it isn’t statistically significant. However, that doesn’t invalidate the argument of the other side (that the warming wasn’t significant!) and trying to claim otherwise just makes you look ridiculous. You’re splitting hairs.

After all, if we take your argument – that a trend is significant, even if it isn’t statistically significant, because the time frame is too short – then in fact the climate has been cooling over the last several years (according to Phil Jones in his interview with the BBC) even as CO2 levels have escalated. Therefore AGW cannot possibly account for the warming that was seen in the late 19th and 20th centuries.

He never said it.
He never admitted it.
He didn’t even say anything close.

That’s the misquote right there.
If you read the actual interview in full it’s really very clear that Dr Phil Jones believes that global warming is happening.
Yet one would never know that if you just followed the denialosphere sound-bites.

Crazy – statistical significance is not a simple binary situation. Jones’s data may have indicated not significant at 95% level but significant at 90% level, for example. Instead of there being 1 chance in 20 of the data being simply a random result perhaps there was 1 chance in 15.

The cut offs are abritary.

The deniers are effectively saying that the trend is just a chance result – which is completely wrong.

And of course it’s not an accident that the particular time period was chosen. If 1994 had been chosen the 95% level would have been acheived.

OK we have conventions about how to define the statistical significance. This is not an issue here because we are looking at trends. We know results are meaningless over short time periods – so the honest approach is to use longer time periods. This might, in future, show a decline at the current time. If so, and it is significant, that’s good. Currently our time period is far to short to draw conclusions.

After all, if we take your argument – that a trend is significant, even if it isn’t statistically significant, because the time frame is too short – then in fact the climate has been cooling over the last several years (according to Phil Jones in his interview with the BBC) even as CO2 levels have escalated. What???

Okie: After all, if we take your argument – that a trend is significant, even if it isn’t statistically significant, because the time frame is too short – then in fact the climate has been cooling over the last several years (according to Phil Jones in his interview with the BBC) even as CO2 levels have escalated.

Because it was
(a) written in the last week
(b) quotes (correctly or otherwise) Phil Jones
and
(c) raises questions on the accuracy of NIWA records.
(d) raises questions over the MWP (of course, this relates back to the original post on Michael Mann’s hockey stick)

NZs Barry Brill often comments (one of the very few people who do) on the Climate Conversation Group Blog. I have tried to get him to admit that there were site effects in the NIWA data – he refuses to do so. Even Treadgold will admit it but of course still pushes a denier political line. Brill has written for the NZ Centre for Political Research – which is a right wing think tank connected to the Heritage Institute, etc. Nicky Hager exposed their role in the 2005 elections (The Hollow Men). They get some interesting conspiracy theorists participating in there forums (9/11 truthers, for example).

The NZCPR describes Brill as “a former MP who has a lengthy background in energy policy – ranging from being the National Minister who introduced “carless days”, to Petrocorp director, and chairing the Gas Council, Power NZ, ESANZ, and EMCO.”

Quadrant was founded in 1956 as an initiative of the Australian Committee for Cultural Freedom, itself associated with the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and so was part of the defensive against Communist inspired, subsidised and/or influenced intellectual publications of the post-World War II era.

That’s neither here or there, but the admission that it is set up with a clear political agenda is relevant and undermines any gravitas it may aspire to having in the field of scientific analysis or comment.

” Quadrant is uncompromisingly in favour of freedom of thought and expression. While insisting on civilised discourse, it opposes any political, academic or religious tendency that wants to suppress freedom of speech.”

I’m not a climate scientist so my opinion isn’t worth much on the science. I rely on the position statements of the world’s major scientific bodies.
Tell you what though, and you’ll assuredly agree with this , since Barry has demonstrated reasoning here that single handedly brings down the house of cards that is climate science he ought to get it published in a high end journal pronto.
I’m sure he’ll collect a Nobel prize.

I have written several posts on the discredited “paper” as has Hot Topic and David Winter. You could do a search (can’t do links from an iPod).

There are dome extra issues. There is something fishy about their (the deniers) data or their methofology. They refuse to provide information, claim they have a “science team” that ” wished to remain anonymous”.

You get the picture.

Anyway, I will shortly be posting my analysis of their data/ methodology problems and their lack of transparency.

It’s interesting to see the level of funding Mann has received. In another thread, Ken refused to answer my question about how much Mann has been paid and I can understand why. Climate change is big business and very lucrative for those fortunate enough to be studying it. The following information pertains to the grants receive by Mann. It doesn’t take into account any payments recived by Mann from Penn Sate or any private donations that may have come his way from vested interest groups.

James – thanks for the list of research contracts awarded to Mann. A correction – I wasn’t refusing to answer your request (which was of course disingenuous becuase you actually had the data). I just wasn’t interested in hunting out information irrelevant to the post.

However, now you have provided a list I have a few comments.

1: As expected the list looks extensive – as we would expect for a scientist of such high standing and reputation. However, I personally would have expected it to be longer. Perhaps it is incomplete – where did you get the list from?

2: Scientists are actually quite proud of these lists – they are always updated in their CVs because they are a good indicator of their professional abilities. This is certainly the case in NZ and I am sure such lists are even more important in the US

3: You seemed to be under the delusion that these funds go into the scientist’s pockets. That is of course silly. They pay for the research, the laboratories, staff, field trips, publications, etc., etc. They pay for research.

Whoever has been telling you that this represents some sort of lucrative business for the individual scientist, that it goes into their pockets, has been telling you naive lies. I recommend you immediately refuse to accept such information from them in the future.

4: Of course this information is readily available. Now I suggest you attempt to find the sources and amounts of funding for the critics of Dr Mann. What institutes, think tanks and corporations help fund the anti-science websites and individuals? Do they get any funding from normal science funding bodies? Is their funding scientific or political in character?

Who is funding well know anti-science individuals to travel to the upcoming international climate denier conference, for example.

Now, that would be a great service. James. I will assume if you don’t provide such a list that you may be trying to hide something.

Thanks again for this list. It does confirm the high scientific standing Dr Mann has. That, together with the fact his work has been amongst the most thoroughly reviewed scientific work ever, does help provide confidence in today’s understanding of climate science.

> >since Barry has demonstrated reasoning here that single handedly brings down the house of cards that is climate science he ought to get it published in a high end journal pronto.

>So if it was published in a high end journal, you would change your mind about climate change? Didn’t think so.

James it appears you are confused about how peer review, journals, scientific consensus and on my how opinion is formed, so unsurprisingly you answered your own question wrongly.

It goes a bit like this, [consensus 101]: Barry submits his masteriece to a scientific journal, it’s published if (big if) it survives peer review. Scientists subsequently read and test his findings, later, meta analysis and literature review determines the current state of scientific thought (consensus) on the topic.

As always, not being an expert in the field, I base my viewpoint on the consensus. At risk of me being presumptuous as to your level of scientific expertise, I say so should you.

Jon, you are clutching at straws. The science report (vol 1) reviews peer reviewed literature. The others (adaption & mitigation) do include grey literature. There is a clear reason for that which is well acknowledged and discussed by the IPCC.

In some regions, particularly the developing countries, there is no peer reviewed literature and we must fall back on what is available, while being aware of it’s limitations.

Of course deniers are trying to makeup stories about that – but they are dishonest. The IPCC conclusions are very tentative, measured and conservative. If anything they underestate the real situation, this is one of the concerns behind the current review of the IPCC process.

Just think about it Jon. Is it at all likely that the IPCC, honest scientists around the world, are going to conspire to falsify information?

Or is it more likely that conspiracy theorists, cranks, and energy/ mining interests will, out of their own interests, distort the truth to invent a convenient story?